6 ms·

As a user I really like the fact that Apple is the only one with my payment informations. I can safely install any app that I want, get subscription, in-apps et

by IMTDb 2y ago

As a user I really like the fact that Apple is the only one with my payment informations. I can safely install any app that I want, get subscription, in-apps etc without ever having to wonder where my payment informations are going. You can't have that level of safety with API. Nothing prevents a dev from building an API that returns always "200 OK" when being called for a "terminate subscription" action, but that does nothing under the hood. If I unsubscribe from an Apple provided UI, I will hold Apple responsible for the execution of the action. Apple works really really hard to make sure that this trust we have in their system is warranted. As we know, trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. So all it takes is a single bad experience to make me doubt everything else. The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything. That being said, Apple should allow users to perform all these operations outside of the iOS ecosystem if the developer allows it. I feel there is a clear communication here that "anything done outside of the Apple UI's is not the responsibility of Apple" (including payment / subscription management).

troupo 2y ago
> Nothing prevents a dev from building an API that returns always "200 OK" when being called for a "terminate subscription" action, but that does nothing under the hood. Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that. > As we know, trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. So all it takes is a single bad experience to make me doubt everything else. This is true. > The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything. However, that same system prevent me from buying Kindle books from the Kindle app on device, for example. Even though I can open the browser on that same device and buy them from Amazon.
- szundi 2y ago
  Laws? Lol. Like bigger part of the world cares.
- cynix 2y ago
  > Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that. Laws mean nothing to scammy developers trying to make a quick buck. Would you hire a lawyer to sue for a $4.99 refund? And even if you’re willing to spend that money, are you sure you can figure out who to sue? The scammy developer is likely using some shell company registered in some dodgy jurisdiction. Sure, what they’re doing is illegal, but the average consumer has no real recourse.
  - immibis 2y ago
    My bank gave me a $10 refund, no questions asked, for a service that wouldn't answer cancellation requests. I don't think they even dinged the service, since they tried to bill me again the next month.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that. Whose laws? The US's laws? Many app developers aren't in the US.
- naravara 2y ago
  > However, that same system prevent me from buying Kindle books from the Kindle app on device, for example. Even though I can open the browser on that same device and buy them from Amazon. I’m sure Apple would actually prefer that you buy the Kindle books on the app, even if they didn’t get a cut of the sale. It is actually Amazon choosing not to do it in order to dodge paying the payment processing fees.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    > paying the payment processing fees Was that ever an option? I thought you always had to pay 30% when selling digital goods
  - troupo 2y ago
    Not a single payment processor in the world has a 30% fee while also having a competing product in which they can have the prices arbitrarily low (because they don't care about the 30% fee they pay to themselves). The egregiously high processing fees from AmEx are at 3.30%.
almostnormal 2y ago
> The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything. Did Apple refund people who were scammed through apps, e.g. in bitcoin trading like [0] (first item google found)? [0] https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-wallet-app-after-it-was-used-to-steal-dollar120k-in-stx https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-walle...
- alt227 2y ago
  > https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-wallet-app-after-it-was-used-to-steal-dollar120k-in-stx https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-walle... Wow thats really worrying, and all these people in here saying they love using Apple products becasue it keeps them safe.
  - martimarkov 2y ago
    I like seatbelts but that doesn’t mean I’ll drive into a truck… I still use critical thinking when I buy stuff. But when I forget to cancel a subscription I can ask for a refund and 99% I get it back from Apple. Like 20-30% when I haven’t used the App Store and went directly to the merchant.
    - alt227 2y ago
      The worry is that after asking apple for a certain amount of refunds they flag you as a troublemaker and block you from using any of their services. This happens all the time. Going directly to companies and merchants keeps this control in your own hands, nobody can block you from buying other software just because you had issues in the past.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - detourdog 2y ago
    I just wonder why it matters to you.
dtech 2y ago
most of your comment is irrelevant because you assume Apple would be calling a external API, while parent means is external calling Apple API to register subscriptions. Then if you have concerns like yours you can stay within Apple ecosystem.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  How would that be helpful if you want to cancel the subscription using a third party payment processor from the app store/settings(current workflow)? Apple would still have to call a third party API, otherwise it doesn’t seem particularly useful (i.e. you just get to see the status and that’s it?)
- jdmichal 2y ago
  That only works if the external API is handing off the entire subscription to Apple, up to and including payments. But the entire premise is to move away from being forced to use Apple for these elements, which makes it a non-sensical interpretation. In fact, that particular interpretation is the current status-quo -- apps use APIs to create subscriptions entirely managed by Apple. If Apple does not control the actual subscription, but is only providing an interface for managing it, then Apple must then alert the actual owner of the subscription upon changes. There's then no guarantee that the code on the other side is properly handling that alert.
viraptor 2y ago
> I will hold Apple responsible for the execution of the action. How do you think you'll do that? And then, how would it be different than with an app developer? When this happens for example https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254901336 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254901336 and you don't have another Apple device available. I can dispute a card transaction, cancel a payment, maybe even send a nastygram to a developer. But if I dispute something with a middleman like Apple, Google, Steam, etc. I have to consider the possibility that they'll cancel my whole account if they think I'm abusing their system with any dispute.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  I mean, canceling a check costs money, and a charge-back (or perhaps more accurately rephrased, the request for a charge-back) on a credit card can be declined by the financial institution if they don't believe it's the correct action, and they'll usually ask you to work with the merchant first. I'm not saying the middlemen you mention there are beyond reproach, merely pointing out the alternative systems that are implied here to be more/perfectly effective aren't exactly that either.
  - alt227 2y ago
    I think youve missed the parents point. They are saying the middleman gatekeepers are dangerous becasue if you push them too hard they can take away your access to everything. Whereas if your agreements are with the individual companies and developers then the worst they can do is take away that one app.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      Oh, point taken certainly. But I have a feeling if a credit card issuer believes you are abusing their charge-back system, they might well nuke your account there too.
      - alt227 2y ago
        The difference is there are many thousands of credit card companies to go and get another one from. There are no other companies you can go to to get an app on your iphone.
bogwog 2y ago
As a user I really hate that I'm forced to give Apple my payment information when I want to do business with a third party on an iPhone, including the possibility that the 30% fee they take gets factored into the price I pay. I think the EU's solution will make us both happy: you don't have to do business with companies that don't offer Apple pay, and I don't have to do business with companies that do.
- massysett 2y ago
  This isn’t true. You can do business through Safari all you want and Apple takes nothing. Indeed I have bought Kindle ebooks on my iPhone that way.
  - bogwog 2y ago
    Not for music, video streaming, games, etc. There are limits to the kinds of experiences that can be built through a web browser (especially Safari).
    - massysett 2y ago
      Do the business through the browser, view the content in the app. Netflix is happy to sell you a subscription through Safari.
      - bogwog 2y ago
        Why do I have to jump through hoops but not you?
Hikikomori 2y ago
Feels like a solution to an American problem, cancelling things isn't much of a problem in EU.
tick_tock_tick 2y ago
> As a user I really like the fact that Apple is the only one with my payment informations. Apple pay provides the exactly same functionality without the lock in. Same with Google pay and even Samsung.

by IMTDb 2y ago

troupo 2y ago

> Nothing prevents a dev from building an API that returns always "200 OK" when being called for a "terminate subscription" action, but that does nothing under the hood. Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that. > As we know, trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. So all it takes is a single bad experience to make me doubt everything else. This is true. > The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything. However, that same system prevent me from buying Kindle books from the Kindle app on device, for example. Even though I can open the browser on that same device and buy them from Amazon.

szundi 2y ago
Laws? Lol. Like bigger part of the world cares.
cynix 2y ago
> Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that. Laws mean nothing to scammy developers trying to make a quick buck. Would you hire a lawyer to sue for a $4.99 refund? And even if you’re willing to spend that money, are you sure you can figure out who to sue? The scammy developer is likely using some shell company registered in some dodgy jurisdiction. Sure, what they’re doing is illegal, but the average consumer has no real recourse.
- immibis 2y ago
  My bank gave me a $10 refund, no questions asked, for a service that wouldn't answer cancellation requests. I don't think they even dinged the service, since they tried to bill me again the next month.
mcphage 2y ago
> Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that. Whose laws? The US's laws? Many app developers aren't in the US.
naravara 2y ago
> However, that same system prevent me from buying Kindle books from the Kindle app on device, for example. Even though I can open the browser on that same device and buy them from Amazon. I’m sure Apple would actually prefer that you buy the Kindle books on the app, even if they didn’t get a cut of the sale. It is actually Amazon choosing not to do it in order to dodge paying the payment processing fees.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > paying the payment processing fees Was that ever an option? I thought you always had to pay 30% when selling digital goods
- troupo 2y ago
  Not a single payment processor in the world has a 30% fee while also having a competing product in which they can have the prices arbitrarily low (because they don't care about the 30% fee they pay to themselves). The egregiously high processing fees from AmEx are at 3.30%.

almostnormal 2y ago

> The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything. Did Apple refund people who were scammed through apps, e.g. in bitcoin trading like [0] (first item google found)? [0] https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-wallet-app-after-it-was-used-to-steal-dollar120k-in-stx https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-walle...

alt227 2y ago
> https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-wallet-app-after-it-was-used-to-steal-dollar120k-in-stx https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-walle... Wow thats really worrying, and all these people in here saying they love using Apple products becasue it keeps them safe.
- martimarkov 2y ago
  I like seatbelts but that doesn’t mean I’ll drive into a truck… I still use critical thinking when I buy stuff. But when I forget to cancel a subscription I can ask for a refund and 99% I get it back from Apple. Like 20-30% when I haven’t used the App Store and went directly to the merchant.
  - alt227 2y ago
    The worry is that after asking apple for a certain amount of refunds they flag you as a troublemaker and block you from using any of their services. This happens all the time. Going directly to companies and merchants keeps this control in your own hands, nobody can block you from buying other software just because you had issues in the past.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- detourdog 2y ago
  I just wonder why it matters to you.

dtech 2y ago

most of your comment is irrelevant because you assume Apple would be calling a external API, while parent means is external calling Apple API to register subscriptions. Then if you have concerns like yours you can stay within Apple ecosystem.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
How would that be helpful if you want to cancel the subscription using a third party payment processor from the app store/settings(current workflow)? Apple would still have to call a third party API, otherwise it doesn’t seem particularly useful (i.e. you just get to see the status and that’s it?)
jdmichal 2y ago
That only works if the external API is handing off the entire subscription to Apple, up to and including payments. But the entire premise is to move away from being forced to use Apple for these elements, which makes it a non-sensical interpretation. In fact, that particular interpretation is the current status-quo -- apps use APIs to create subscriptions entirely managed by Apple. If Apple does not control the actual subscription, but is only providing an interface for managing it, then Apple must then alert the actual owner of the subscription upon changes. There's then no guarantee that the code on the other side is properly handling that alert.

viraptor 2y ago

> I will hold Apple responsible for the execution of the action. How do you think you'll do that? And then, how would it be different than with an app developer? When this happens for example https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254901336 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254901336 and you don't have another Apple device available. I can dispute a card transaction, cancel a payment, maybe even send a nastygram to a developer. But if I dispute something with a middleman like Apple, Google, Steam, etc. I have to consider the possibility that they'll cancel my whole account if they think I'm abusing their system with any dispute.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I mean, canceling a check costs money, and a charge-back (or perhaps more accurately rephrased, the request for a charge-back) on a credit card can be declined by the financial institution if they don't believe it's the correct action, and they'll usually ask you to work with the merchant first. I'm not saying the middlemen you mention there are beyond reproach, merely pointing out the alternative systems that are implied here to be more/perfectly effective aren't exactly that either.
- alt227 2y ago
  I think youve missed the parents point. They are saying the middleman gatekeepers are dangerous becasue if you push them too hard they can take away your access to everything. Whereas if your agreements are with the individual companies and developers then the worst they can do is take away that one app.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    Oh, point taken certainly. But I have a feeling if a credit card issuer believes you are abusing their charge-back system, they might well nuke your account there too.
    - alt227 2y ago
      The difference is there are many thousands of credit card companies to go and get another one from. There are no other companies you can go to to get an app on your iphone.

bogwog 2y ago

As a user I really hate that I'm forced to give Apple my payment information when I want to do business with a third party on an iPhone, including the possibility that the 30% fee they take gets factored into the price I pay. I think the EU's solution will make us both happy: you don't have to do business with companies that don't offer Apple pay, and I don't have to do business with companies that do.

massysett 2y ago
This isn’t true. You can do business through Safari all you want and Apple takes nothing. Indeed I have bought Kindle ebooks on my iPhone that way.
- bogwog 2y ago
  Not for music, video streaming, games, etc. There are limits to the kinds of experiences that can be built through a web browser (especially Safari).
  - massysett 2y ago
    Do the business through the browser, view the content in the app. Netflix is happy to sell you a subscription through Safari.
    - bogwog 2y ago
      Why do I have to jump through hoops but not you?

Hikikomori 2y ago

Feels like a solution to an American problem, cancelling things isn't much of a problem in EU.

tick_tock_tick 2y ago

> As a user I really like the fact that Apple is the only one with my payment informations. Apple pay provides the exactly same functionality without the lock in. Same with Google pay and even Samsung.